A rhetorical analysis of the letter to the Galatians

(1)

A

RHETORICAL

ANALYSIS

OF

THE

LETTER

TO THE GALATIANS

BY

DONALD FRANCOIS TOLMIE

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE

PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GREEK

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE

BLOEMFONTEIN

SOUTH AFRICA

PROMOTER: PROF. J. VAN W. CRONJÉ

APRIL 2004

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Since my undergraduate studies in Greek more than twenty years ago, the concept of rhetorical criticism has fascinated me. This was primarily due to one of the Professors in Greek at the University of the Orange Free State, Cobus Cronjé. With his remarkable knowledge of ancient Greek rhetoricians and his unwavering enthusi-asm for the academic study of persuasion he aroused and kept alive my interest in this fascinating aspect of human communication. During my Honours and Masters courses in Greek I spent much time investigating this theme further. However, my D. Th. studies in New Testament took me on a different road, that of the narratological anal-ysis of some chapters in the Fourth Gospel. But I always knew that I would one day return to rhetorical criticism, and, in particular, its application to the Letter to the Ga-latians. It so happened that I could devote my time to this issue since 1995. Now, at the completion of this study, I wish to thank those who were involved in one way or another in this endeavour:

• Cobus Cronjé was an excellent promoter during my studies. His knowledge of ancient and modern theories of persuasion enabled me to undertake and complete this study with much satisfaction. He has not only been my academic guide, but also became a friend in the true sense of the word.

• I also wish to express my gratitude to the University of the Free State for the study leave granted to me on several occasions and for providing a climate fa-vourable for research. In particular, I wish to express my gratitude to my col-league in the department of New Testament (now Dean of the Faculty of The-ology), Hermie van Zyl, for his friendship and words of encouragement. He also made valuable suggestions with regard to Chapter 3.

• In 1997 the University of Durham awarded me a Visiting Fellowship for three months. A heartfelt word of thanks to Jimmy Dunn with whom I could discuss my research project, and from whom I received valuable advice.

• I also wish to express my gratitude to the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven who accepted me as visiting professor on two occasions, in 2001 and again in 2003. In particular, I want to thank Joël Delobel and Gilbert van Belle who acted as hosts during my first and second stays, respectively.

• Lastly, but most importantly, I wish to express my gratitude to my family, in particular, my parents, my wife, Ansa, and my three children, Carmien, Fran-cois and Mialise. Without them this study would not have meant anything to me.

It is my earnest prayer that this study will not only contribute to the academic understanding of the Letter to the Galatians, but will also help us to understand God's Word in a better way. After all, Paul was right about what is really important in life: ejn ga;r Cristw`/ jIhsou` ou[te peritomhv ti ijscuvei ou[te aj-krobustiva ajlla; pivsti" diÆ ajgavph" ejnergoumevnh (Gal. 5:6),

(8)

and: ou[te ga;r peritomhv tiv ejstin ou[te ajkrobustiva ajlla; kainh; ktivsi" (Gal. 6:15).

D. Francois Tolmie. Faculty of Theology,

University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, February 2004.

(9)

ABBREVIATIONS

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

ABR Australian Biblical Review

ACEBT Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie

AcTh Acta Theologica

AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Ur-christentums

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

AThANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neues Testaments BBB Bonner Biblische Beiträge

BCPE Bulletin du Centre Protestant d'Études

BCSNT Biblische Commentar über sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments

BDAG W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich & F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 2000. Third edition.

BDR F. Blass & A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Bearbeitet von Friedrich Rehkopf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. 18. Auflage.

BET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie

BEThL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BFChTh Beiträge zur Forderung Christlicher Theologie

BHTh Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie

Bib Biblica

BiblSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BibTod Bible Today

BIS Biblical Interpretation Series

BMSBES Benedictina Monograph Series: Biblical-Ecumenical Section

BN Biblische Notizen

BNTC Black's New Testament Commentaries BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BThZ Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CB.NT Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series

CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBSC Cambridge Bible for Scholars and Colleges CThMi Currents in Theology and Missions

(10)

EHS Europäische Hochschulschriften Eloc (Demetrius) de Elocutione

ESEC Emory Studies in Early Christianity

ET Expository Times

EThL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

Exp Expositor

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Altens und Neuen Testaments

FzB Forschung zur Bibel

GTA Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten HisRhet History of Rhetoric

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HSNT Die Heilige Schrift des Neuen Testaments HThR Harvard Theological Review

HThS Harvard Theological Studies

HTKNT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HUTh Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie

IBSt Irish Biblical Studies

ICC International Critical Commentary Interp Interpretation

IThS Innsbrucker Theologische Studien JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JBL.MS Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JR Journal of Religion

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNT.S Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JThS Journal of Theological Studies

JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa

Jud Judaica

KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

KNT Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

L&N J. P. Louw & E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

LEC Library of Early Christianity

LSCP London Studies in Classical Philology

LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott & H. Jones, Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.

MillSt Milltown Studies

MNTC Moffat New Testament Commentaries

(11)

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGNT New International Greek Testament Commentary

NT Novum Testamentum

NT.S Novum Testamentum Supplements

NTA Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

NTA(NF) Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen (Neue Folge)

NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch

NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus

NTS New Testament Studies

NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies

PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association of America Presb Presbyterion

PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies

RB Revue Biblique

RestQ Restoration Quarterly

RExp Review and Expositor

Rhet Rhetorica

RNT Regensburger Neues Testament

RStR Religious Studies Review SBL.DS SBL Dissertation Series

SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

Script Scriptura

SKGA Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums SNTS.MS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SNW Studies of the New Testament and its World

SR Studies in Religion

StBL Studies in Biblical Literature

StTh Studia Theologica

SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology

TB Theologische Bücherei

TBNT Theologische Bücherei, Neues Testament

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967, Reprinted 1973)

ThD Theology Digest

Theol Theologie

ThHK Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung

ThR Theological Review

ThTo Theology Today

ThViat(S) Theologia Viatorum (Faculty of Theology, University of the North, Sovenga)

ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift

TS Theological Studies

(12)

TTh Tijdschrift voor theologie

TynB Tyndale Bulletin

UBT Urban Taschenbücher

UNT Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Tes-tament

WThJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

YR Yale Review

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

(13)

PART 1 INTRODUCTION

As the title of this study indicates, this is a rhetorical analysis. Since "rhetori-cal" is one of those terms that can be used to indicate almost any form of literary criti-cism nowadays,1 it is necessary to clarify what I mean when using it. In this study I shall use it in the narrower sense of the word, that is, as referring to an approach which aims to analyse the ways in which a text is used in order to persuade its audi-ence.2 However, before outlining my intention in more detail, it is necessary to pro-vide a brief overview of recent rhetorical studies of Galatians in order to indicate how my study overlaps and differs from other rhetorical studies of the Letter to the Gala-tians.

1. Recent rhetorical studies of Galatians

1.1 H. D. Betz

H. D. Betz is credited with reviving3 interest in the rhetorical nature of Gala-tians. Building on his earlier research,4 Betz published his well-known commentary on Galatians in 1979.5 His main thesis is that Galatians is to be regarded as an exam-ple of the ancient "apologetic letter genre" and that it can therefore be analysed by means of Greco-Roman rhetoric and epistolography. One of the important distinctions

1

When "rhetorical" is used in a broader sense, it can refer to any aspect linked to the production, struc-ture and reception of texts. See F. D'Angelo, "Rhetorical Criticism", in: T. Enos (ed.), Encyclopedia of

Rhetoric and Composition. Communication from Ancient Times into the Information Age (New York:

Garland, 1996), pp. 604-608, for a discussion of the way in which literary criticism tends to dissolve into rhetorical criticism nowadays.

2

I will use "audience" in order to refer to the first readers/hearers of the Letter to the Galatians.

3

It is important to note that the modern rhetorical approach to the New Testament is not something totally new. See C. J. Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (WUNT 128, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), pp. 1-28, who points out that ancient rhetorical criticism was used frequently in the interpretation of the New Testament, for example by Melanchton. (Earlier versions: "St. Paul's Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric", in: S. E. Porter & T. H. Olbricht [eds.], Rhetoric

and the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference [JSNT.S 90, Sheffield: JSOT

Press, 1993], pp. 264-291; and "Paulus und die antike Rhetorik", ZNW 82:1-2 [1991], pp. 1-33.)

4

See H. D. Betz, "The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians", NTS 21:3 (1975), pp. 353-379.

5

H. D. Betz, Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia, Phil-adelphia: Fortress, 1979). The German version was published in 1988 as Der Galaterbrief. Ein

Kom-mentar zum Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien (Hermeneia, München: Kaiser,

(14)

in ancient rhetoric was the three classes of rhetoric identified by Aristotle: forensic, epideictic and deliberative rhetoric. Forensic rhetoric dealt with courtroom oratory, in particular, speeches of accusation and defence, the basic issue being guilt or inno-cence. Epideictic rhetoric focused on ceremonial oratory, in particular, speeches of praise and blame, the basic issue being the honourable and the shameful. Deliberative rhetoric dealt with counselling the audience on a future course of action, usually with-in a political context, the basic issue bewith-ing the expediency or harmfulness of a future act.6_{According to Betz, as an apologetic letter, Galatians is an example of forensic}

rhetoric, as it presupposes the fictitious situation of a court of law: Paul is to be re-garded as the defendant, his opponents as the accusers and the Galatians as the jury. Furthermore, Betz argues that the intended function of the letter is not only to per-suade the Galatians to accept Paul's case, but also to serve as a "magical letter", as it contains both a conditional blessing and a curse that would become effective at the reading of the letter.7

Based on his view that Galatians can be analysed in terms of the classical rhe-torical system, Betz then applies the categories used in forensic defence speeches to the letter and provides a detailed (this should be stressed!) outline of the letter. I indi-cate only the broadest division:

1:1-5: Epistolary prescript 1:6-11: Exordium

1:12-2:14: Narratio 2:15-21: Propositio 3:1-4:31: Probatio

3:1-5: First argument: an argument from indisputable evidence 3:6-14: Second argument: an argument from Scripture

3:15-18: Third argument: an argument from common human practice 3:19-25: Digression on the Torah

3:26-4:11: Fourth argument: an argument from Christian tradition 4:12-20: Fifth argument: an argument from friendship

4:21-31: Sixth argument: an allegorical argument from Scripture 5:1-6:10: Exhortatio

6:11-18: Epistolary postscript (serving as conclusio).8

In his commentary Betz frequently refers to ancient rhetorical theory as well as to other ancient literature in order to explain Paul's argumentation.

Virtually all the reviews of Betz's commentary indicate a mixed reaction. On the one hand, the significance of his contribution is acknowledged – in particular, the way in which he shows his skill in the grammatical, lexical, historical and theological commentary on the text. On the other hand, reviewers are reluctant to accept the rigid way in which Betz applies the forensic rhetorical system to the letter. For example, C. K. Barrett9 hails the commentary as an "outstanding achievement in biblical rhetorical

6_{See S. P. O'Rourke, "Modes of Discourse", in: T. Enos (ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and}

Composi-tion. Communication from Ancient Times into the Information Age (New York: Garland, 1996), pp.

446-447.

7_{Betz, Galatians, pp. 24-25.} 8_{Ibid., pp. 16-23.}

(15)

scholarship", yet at the same time he points out that Betz makes too much of the Greco-Roman rhetorical model, and that other factors should also be considered. Sim-ilarly, D. E. Aune10 sees the great strength of the commentary in Betz's emphasis on the need of understanding and interpreting Galatians within a larger genetic frame-work and the meticulous way in which he analyses the argument and content of the letter in terms of Greco-Roman rhetoric. Yet, he considers Betz's attempts to force the letter into the framework of the apologetic letter as a major drawback.11_{Nevertheless,}

all subsequent rhetorical analyses have to situate themselves in relation to Betz's study.

1.2 Forensic or deliberative rhetoric?

One of the issues that has been receiving considerable attention is Betz's main proposal, namely that Galatians must be regarded as an apologetic letter12 and that it can therefore be analysed in terms of the categories developed in ancient rhetoric for the analysis of forensic speeches. This has been met with mixed reaction:

1.2.1 A number of scholars respond favourably to this proposal. Scholars such as

Brinsmead, Ruegg, Hübner, Becker, Hester and Martin accept it – although in a quali-fied way.

 H. Brinsmead13_{treats Galatians as a dialogic response to Paul's opponents. In this}

process he discusses the literary genre of Galatians and accepts Betz's classifica-tion of Galatians as an apologetic letter and then follows his outline of the struc-ture of the letter with some minor qualifications.14

 U. Ruegg15_{also accepts Betz's proposal with regard to the apologetic nature of}

Galatians. His argument is similar to that of Betz: Galatians corresponds to the rhetorical structure of a legal plea as outlined by Quintilian, and should thus be classified as forensic. He also indicates how Betz's approach helps to illuminate

10_{D. E. Aune, "Review of Betz, H. D., Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in}

Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)", RStR 7 (1981), pp. 323-325.

11

For other reviews of Betz's work see W. D. Davies, "Review of Betz, H. D., Galatians. A

Commen-tary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)", RStR 7 (1981), pp.

310-318; P. W. Meyer, "Review of Betz, H. D., Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the

Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)", RStR 7 (1981), pp. 318-323; E. A. Russell,

"Con-vincing or Merely Curious? A Look at Some Recent Writings on Galatians", IBSt 6:4 (1984), pp. 156-176; and M. Silva, "Betz and Bruce on Galatians", WThJ 45:2 (1983), pp. 371-385.

12

In the foreword of the German version of his commentary Betz confirms that his view in this regard has not changed. See Betz, Galaterbrief, p. 2.

13

B. H. Brinsmead, Galatians (SBL.DS 65, Chico: Scholars Press, 1982). Although Brinsmead's study was published in 1982, it was completed in 1979 and, accordingly, he only used Betz, "Composition", and not Betz, Galatians.

14

For example, Brinsmead, Galatians, pp. 49-55, identifies Galatians 1:6-10 as exordium instead of Betz's 1:6-11 ("Composition", pp. 359-361), and classifies Galatians 5:1-6:10 as refutatio and not as

exhortatio as Betz, "Composition", pp. 375-377, does.

(16)

Paul's strategy in the letter, his cultural background, personality and apostolic au-thority.

 H. Hübner16_{also accepts Betz's proposal that Galatians is to be viewed as a}

foren-sic speech, yet draws attention to what he considers the most vulnerable part of Betz's reasoning, namely that he does not take into account that Galatians is a let-ter and not a speech:

Wie kann die Gattung Verteidigungsbrief mit den Begriffen der Rhetorik auf einen Nenner gebracht werden? Noch fundamentaler gefragt: Wie steht es um das

Verhält-nis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik? (Hübner's italics).17

He then proceeds to answer the question himself. He argues that it is indeed pos-sible to reconcile these two categories as Galatians is the letter of a man for whom preaching was an essential task, and that Paul followed this kind of style when he wrote letters.18 Hübner then proposes minor qualifications to Betz's rhetorical out-line. For example, he classifies Galatians 3:1-5 as introduction to the probatio,19 and adds Galatians 5:1-12 to the probatio20 and not to the exhortatio as Betz does. In his Biblische Theologie21 Hübner confirms his view that Galatians is to be re-garded as an apologetic letter.

 J. Becker22_{also follows Betz. However, his outline of the rhetorical structure of}

Galatians differs slightly from that of Betz: Galatians 1:6-9 (exordium; v. 10 is re-garded as a brief transition), 1:11-2:14a (narratio), 2:14b-21 (propositio),23 3:1-5:12 (probatio) divided into two argumentative complexes (3:1-4:7; 4:8-31) fol-lowed by a conclusion (5:1-12), and, finally, 5:13-6:10 (paraenesis).

 In an article devoted to the rhetorical structure of Galatians, James Hester24

pro-poses some modifications to Betz's explanation of the rhetorical structure of Gala-tians: the exordium is delineated as 1:6-10 instead of Betz's 1:6-11; 1:11-12 is

16_{H. Hübner, "Der Galaterbrief und das Verhältnis von antiker Rhetorik und Epistolographie", ThLZ}

109:4 (1984), pp. 241-250. See p. 249: "Im Prinzip ist B. zuzustimmen."

17

Ibid., p. 245.

18

Ibid., p. 245: "...daß Paulus Apostel war, und als solcher, sofern er schreibt 'redend schreibt.'"

19

Ibid., p. 249.

20

Ibid., p. 246.

21

H. Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 2: Die Theologie des Paulus und ihre

neutestamentliche Wirkungsgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 57-58.

Hüb-ner acknowledges that it would be possible to classify Galatians as an example of deliberative rhetoric instead of forensic rhetoric, but, nevertheless, maintains that, in principle, it is apologetic and that at-tack ("Angriff") would be possible in such a speech.

22

J. Becker, Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992), pp. 288-294.

23

According to Becker, Paulus, p. 292, Galatians 2:14b-21 can be viewed as a small forensic speech ("eine kleine Gerichtsrede") with 2:14b as exordium, 2:15-17 as narratio, 2:18-20 as probatio, and 2:21 as peroratio.

24

J. D. Hester, "The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14", JBL 103:2 (1984), pp. 223-233. Note that in this article he does not intend to examine Betz's assertion that Galatians is a model of fo-rensic speech.

(17)

identified as the stasis25 with 1:13-14 functioning as a transitio; the narratio is de-lineated as 1:15-2:10 instead of Betz's 1:12-2:14; and 2:11-14 is identified as

di-gressio. In another article, Hester26 responds favourably to Betz's proposal that a

forensic model is present in Galatians (at least through Gal 2:21),27 and discusses the topoi (in particular, quality and order) as well as a number of rhetorical devic-es used in Galatians 2:1-10. In an article published later, Hdevic-ester28_{develops his}

in-terpretation of Galatians 1:11-12 as the stasis statement of the letter. He points out that the stasis of Galatians is to be classified as one of qualitas. This is then linked to the epideictic genre, and he concludes that Galatians 1-2 is a carefully con-structed epideictic discourse.29

 T. Martin30_{also analyses the rhetorical stasis of the Galatian controversy. He}

de-termines the principal stasis as Galatians 4:8-11 and the secondary stasis as Gala-tians 1:6-9. According to Martin, the principal stasis is one of quality. He then presents an analysis of Galatians to show how Paul argues his case based on this stasis. He concludes by noting that Betz is correct in identifying Galatians as an example of forensic oratory, since the breach of agreement between Paul and the Galatians was an issue that could have been tried in a court of law.

1.2.2 Several scholars do not accept Betz's classification of Galatians as an example

of forensic rhetoric. Instead, they regard Galatians as a mixture of two rhetorical gen-res:

25_{See R. D. Anderson, Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms Connected to Methods of Argumentation,}

Figures and Tropes from Anaximenes to Quintilian (CBET 24, Leuven: Peeters, 2000), p. 68 note 111,

for a brief description of what was meant by stasis. It was used in ancient rhetoric mostly in connection with judicial rhetoric and referred to the nature of the case to be argued. Usually four staseis were identified:

1. Concerning the fact of the occurrence, for example, did the accused actually com-mit the crime?

2. Concerning the definition of the crime, for example, can the deed committed by the accused really be classified as murder?

3. Concerning the quality, for example, were there any mitigating circumstances that justified the deed?

4. Concerning the procedural objections, for example, has the accused been brought before the appropriate court?

26

J. D Hester, "The Use and Influence of Rhetoric in Galatians 2:1-14", ThZ 42:5 (1986), pp. 386-408.

27

Ibid., p. 408.

28

J. D. Hester, "Placing the Blame: The Presence of Epideictic in Galatians 1 and 2", in: D. F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (JSNT.S 50, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 281-307.

29

See also his "Epideictic Rhetoric and Persona in Galatians 1 and 2", in: M. D. Nanos (ed.), The

Ga-latians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody:

Hendrick-son, 2002), pp. 180-196, in which he argues that a "constellation of forms" (p. 195) related to the epi-deictic can be indicated in Galatians 1-2.

30

"Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy", JBL 114:3 (1995), pp. 437-461.

(18)

 D. E. Aune31_{proposes that Galatians should be viewed as a mixture of two types}

of rhetoric, namely forensic and deliberative. According to this proposal, Gala-tians 1-2 is an example of forensic rhetoric (as Betz maintains), but GalaGala-tians 3-4 is an example of deliberative rhetoric, since, according to Aune, there is a clear change of style (in particular, the introduction of diatribe style) at the beginning of chapter 3.

 Aune's suggestion is followed by G. W. Hansen,32_{whose primary aim is to}

de-scribe the function of Paul's use of the Abraham story in the light of an epistolary and a rhetorical analysis. With regard to the rhetorical genre of Galatians, Hansen points out that Galatians 1:6-4:11 has the typical characteristics of forensic rheto-ric, since Paul defends himself against false accusations in these chapters, and, at the same time accuses his opponents of spreading a false gospel. However, ac-cording to Hansen, there is a major shift in Galatians 4:12-20: the dominant tone becomes deliberative rather than forensic. Henceforth Paul's primary purpose is no longer to accuse/defend, but to persuade the Galatians to adopt a new kind of ac-tion.33 Thus, Galatians consists of a mixture of forensic and deliberative rhetoric.  In his study of the rhetorical situation of 1 Thessalonians, Galatians and

Philippi-ans, J. Schoon-Janßen34 devotes attention to the way in which Paul uses the fol-lowing aspects: epistolography, Greco-Roman rhetoric, diatribe style and Old Testament quotations. In his discussion of the way in which Paul uses Greco-Roman rhetoric he rejects Betz's proposal that Galatians must be viewed as an ex-ample of forensic rhetoric only. According to Schoon-Janßen, Galatians consists of a mixture of rhetorical genres: Galatians 1:10-2:14 can be classified as pure fo-rensic oratory;35_{Galatians 3:1-5:12 is a mixture of deliberative and forensic}

orato-ry, and Galatians 5:13-6:18 is pure deliberative oratory.36

1.2.3 There is also a third perspective on the rhetorical genre of Galatians. Some

scholars reject Betz's proposal that Galatians must be viewed as an example of foren-sic rhetoric, arguing that it should be classified as an example of deliberative oratory. Scholars such as Kennedy, Hall, Cosgrove, Vouga and Smit choose this option:

31

"Review", pp. 325-326.

32

G. W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians. Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNT.S 29, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).

33_{Ibid., pp. 58-60. It should be pointed out that Hansen also includes an epistolary analysis, as well as}

a discussion of the rhetorical techniques in Galatians in terms of the outline provided by Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969).

34

J. Schoon-Janßen, Umstrittene "Apologien" in den Paulusbriefen. Studien zur rhetorischen Situation

des 1. Thessalonicherbriefes, des Galaterbriefes und des Philipperbriefes (GTA 45, Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).

35

Schoon-Janßen, ibid., p. 112, distinguishes three arguments ("Beweisgänge") in this section (Gala-tians 1:12-24; 2:1-10 and 2:11-14), and views the dialogical use of diatribe elements as important for delineating this section.

(19)

 G. A. Kennedy37_{draws attention to the fact that Betz is unable to provide any}

ex-ample of forensic rhetoric that includes exhortation (as is found in Galatians 5-6). According to Kennedy, this is not the case with deliberative rhetoric, since Quin-tilian states that exhortation and discussion are two forms of deliberative rhetoric. Thus, it is better to classify Galatians as an example of deliberative rhetoric. Ac-cording to Kennedy, this is confirmed by the fact that the basic argument in Gala-tians is that the action, which the audience has to take, is in their self-interest – the type of argument typical of deliberative rhetoric.38

 R. G. Hall39_{argues that the aim of Paul's argument in Galatians is not primarily to}

defend himself (as Betz assumes), but rather to urge the Galatians to cleave to him and his version of the gospel. Therefore Hall classifies Galatians as deliberative. He also provides a different outline of the rhetorical structure of Galatians:

1. Salutation (1:1-5) 2. Propositio (1:6-9) 3. Proof (1:10-6:10) A. Narration (1:10-2:21) B. Further Headings (3:1-6:10) 4. Epilogue (6:11-18).40

 In his study of the relation between cross and Spirit in Galatians, C. H. Cosgrove41

points out that Paul's aim is to change the Galatians' present course of thinking and action with reference to the gospel, and argues that the letter should be classi-fied as a deliberative speech. In his own outline of the letter, Cosgrove pays more attention to its epistolary nature and divides it as follows:

Opening (1:1-5)

Thanksgiving parody (1:6-10) Body (1:11-6:10)

Part One: Apostolic Autobiography (1:11-2:21) Part Two: Central Argument (3:1-4:30) Part Three: Apostolic Exhortation (4:31-6:10)

Opening (4:31-5:12)

Paraenesis (5:13-6:10) Postscript (6:11-17)

Closing Benediction (6:18).42

 In a short article on the rhetorical genre of Galatians, F. Vouga43_{points out that}

one of the arguments that can be lodged against attempts to classify Galatians as

37

G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: Univer-sity of North Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 145-147.

38

See Section 1.3.1 below for the methodology developed by Kennedy for rhetorical analysis.

39

R. G. Hall, "The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration", JBL 106:2 (1987), pp. 277-287.

40

Ibid., p. 287.

41

C. H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit. A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Ma-con: Mercer University Press, 1988), pp. 25-27. On p. 26 (note 49) Cosgrove draws attention to an unpublished paper of N. Dahl in which he stresses the affinities between Galatians and deliberative rhetoric, too.

(20)

an example of deliberative rhetoric is the exceptional length of the narratio. Therefore he draws attention to an ancient deliberative text that does contain a relatively long narratio, namely Demosthenes' On the Peace. Vouga argues that the dispositio of this speech corresponds exactly to that of Galatians,44 and that this may serve as confirmation that Galatians is indeed a deliberative speech.  J. Smit45_{raises several objections against Betz's rhetorical analysis and then}

pre-sents his own analysis of the letter in terms of the rules designed for rhetoric:46

Exordium (1:6-12) Narratio (1:13-2:21) Confirmatio (3:1-4:11)

Conclusio: Part 1: Conquestio (4:12-20) Conclusio: Part 2: Enumeratio (4:21-5:6) Conclusio: Part 3: Indignatio (5:7-12) Amplificatio (6:11-18).

Smit concludes that Galatians corresponds entirely to the norms set for deliberative rhetoric in the ancient handbooks on rhetoric.47

 W. B. Russell48_{also regards Galatians as a deliberative speech. He basically uses}

the procedures outlined by G. A. Kennedy49 and outlines the rhetorical structure of the letter as follows:

Prescript/Salutation (1:1-5)

Prologue/Proem/Exordium (1:6-10) Proof/Probatio/Confirmatio (1:11-6:10)

A. A historical argument proving the superiority of Paul's gospel via

nar-ratio (1:11-2:21)

B. An experimental argument proving the superiority of their sonship-through-faith via Scripture fulfilment in six external proofs (3:1-4:31) C. A causal argument proving the superiority of their present deliverance

in Christ via community observation (5:1-6:10)

43_{F. Vouga, "Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes", ZNW 79:3-4 (1988), pp. 291-292.}

44_{For criticism of this argument, see R. D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (CBET 18,}

Leuven: Peeters, 1999, Revised Edition), p. 148 (note 60).

45

J. Smit, "The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech", NTS 35:1 (1989), pp. 1-26.

46

Ibid., pp. 9-22. Note that Galatians 5:13-6:10 is omitted, because Smit views it as a (Pauline) frag-ment added to the letter at a later stage.

47_{Ibid., pp. 22-23. R. T. H. Dolamo, "Rhetorical Speech in Galatians", ThViat(S) 17 (1989), pp. 30-37,}

also regards Galatians as a deliberative speech. See also the comments by H. Boers, The Justification

of the Gentiles. Paul's Letter to the Galatians and Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), p. 45:

Neither Betz nor his critics have shown conclusively that Galatians was actually structured by Paul as a rhetorical speech with an epistolary prescript and conclusion. What they have shown, with varying degrees of success, is that Galatians can be ana-lyzed rhetorically in terms of the structure of either an apologetic or a deliberative speech. They have shown convincingly that Paul's letters were influenced by rheto-ric, either formally or as a part of Paul's involvement in the general culture of his time... Furthermore, these studies have shown that if the letter was structured rhetori-cally, the evidence clearly favors a deliberative speech.

48

W. B. Russell, "Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians", BiblSac 150:599 (1993), pp. 341-358, and BiblSac 150:600 (1993), pp. 416-439.

(21)

Postscript/Epilogue/Conclusio (6:11-18).

1.3 Alternatives

Not all scholars share the enthusiasm for the way in which Betz applies rhetor-ical criticism to Galatians. Most of them are not against the notion of rhetorrhetor-ical criti-cism as such, but feel uneasy about the rigid way in which Betz applies categories from ancient rhetorical criticism to Galatians. Accordingly, a number of alternative approaches are suggested:

1.3.1 One alternative is that ancient rhetoric may be used to analyse Galatians,

alt-hough not in the way Betz does it. Several scholars can be mentioned:

 G. A. Kennedy50_{views rhetoric as a universal phenomenon. In particular, he}

re-gards ancient rhetoric as a universal system that can be applied to all texts.51 Yet he does not follow the same approach as Betz. Instead, he develops his own meth-odology comprising of the following steps:52

- Determination of the rhetorical unit: It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It should not be too large and, accordingly, it is better to analyse a large rhetorical unit in terms of its smaller constituent units.

- Determination of the rhetorical situation: Determine why the rhetorical units were uttered and examine the audience, events, objects, relations, time and place. This phase also includes the identification of the rhetorical problem (for example, the disposition of the audience), the stasis and the rhetorical genre. - Determine the arrangement of the material, that is, the way in which it is di-vided into various parts, and determine how the various parts work together towards a unified purpose (or fail to do so). This should include a line-by-line analysis of the argument including such issues as its assumptions, formal fea-tures and stylistic devices.

- Determination of the success of the arguments in meeting its goal.

 R. M. Berchman53_{shares the view that Galatians should be viewed from the}

per-spective of Greco-Roman rhetoric, but points out that scholars wrongly assume that a mimetic relationship exists between the theory and practice of rhetoric in antiquity. Instead "adaptability and flexibility are the hallmarks of Pauline rheto-ric".54 In his analysis of Galatians 1:1-5 he focuses on logic, topic and genre. He argues that Paul exhibits a knowledge and use of Greco-Roman rhetoric, yet he

50

New Testament Interpretation. Kennedy's views on the rhetorical genre of Galatians is discussed in 1.2 above.

51

Ibid., pp. 10-11.

52

Ibid., pp. 33-38. See Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, pp. 28-29, on the difficulty in outlining the various steps distinguished by Kennedy.

53

R. M. Berchman, "Galatians (1:1-5): Paul and Greco-Roman Rhetoric", in: M. D. Nanos (ed.), The

Galatians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody:

Hen-drickson, 2002), pp. 60-72.

(22)

does not use it in the prescribed way. Instead he adapts it to suit his persuasive needs. For example, Berchman believes that Paul employs all three species of rhetoric in Galatians 1:1-5: he argues forensically in 1:1-2, deliberatively in 1:3-4, and epideictically in 1:5.

 C. J. Classen,55_{a classical scholar, begins by noting several questions raised by}

Betz's commentary. This is then followed by a general observation on an alterna-tive way to use the categories from ancient rhetoric:

When one turns to the categories of rhetoric as tools for a more adequate and thor-ough appreciation of texts, their general structure and their details, one should not hesitate to use the most developed and sophisticated form, as it will offer more help than any other. For there is no good reason to assume that a text could and should be examined only according to categories known (or possibly known) to the author con-cerned. For rhetoric provides a system for the interpretation of all texts (as well as of oral utterances and even of other forms of communication), irrespectively of time and circumstances…56

To prove this point, Classen proceeds to show how Melanchton, who wrote three rhetorical handbooks, treated Galatians. Classen quotes various examples which show clearly how Melanchton made abundant use of the tools provided by ancient rhetorical criticism (thus proving the usefulness of the system), yet did not hesi-tate to introduce new categories and new terms if he deemed them necessary. Thus, according to Classen, ancient rhetorical criticism may be applied, but never in a rigid way. In his own analysis of Galatians, Classen shows how many features in Galatians can indeed be explained by means of classical rhetoric, but, equally important, how the categories of classical rhetoric are often inadequate to explain exactly what happens in Galatians. He explains this by the fact that Galatians is a letter and not a speech.57

 J. Fairweather58_{also draws attention to a very old rhetorical analysis of Galatians,}

namely that of John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Letter to the Galatians. According to Fairweather, this analysis is a valuable alternative to that of Betz in several aspects: Whereas Betz considers Galatians 2:15-21 to be a propositio, Chrysostom rightly regards it as part of Paul's answer to Peter in Antioch. Fur-thermore, Chrysostom views the letter as being simultaneously apologetic and paraenetic – this is a better perspective than that of Betz who views it as apologet-ic only. According to Fairweather, Chrysostom also provides a better division of the argument in Galatians than Betz. She also discusses the question of what justi-fication Paul had for regarding his discourse as being alien to the sofiva of the world. She concludes that, although at the more superficial levels, Paul used many of the typical techniques employed in classical oratory, he nevertheless used a

55_{Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament.} 56_{Ibid., p. 5.}

57_{Ibid., pp. 23-24.}

(23)

conceptual framework different from that of pagan sophists in that he used a "Christ-based" logic.59

 The contribution of J. S. Vos60_{should also be mentioned as an example of}

schol-ars who use the ancient rhetorical system, but not in such a rigid fashion as Betz. His aim is to show how Paul's means of persuasion were based within contempo-rary Hellenistic culture, but also how these means of persuasion would have been evaluated differently in this culture.61 In his analysis of Galatians 1:1-2:1162 he criticises scholars who classify 1:6-9 as exordium, and instead opts for another model according to which 1:6-9 is identified as propositio and 1:10-5:12 as

con-firmatio. In another chapter,63 Vos also uses information from ancient rhetorical

theory to explain Paul's way of thinking in Galatians 3:11-12 (and Romans 10:5-10). According to him, the way in which Paul uses the hermeneutical opposition between Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 in these verses is understandable if one realises that Paul was following the principles laid down in the Greco-Roman rhe-torical handbooks concerning the legum contrariarum, that is cases where two laws oppose one another.64

 One of the most important contributions to the debate on how rhetorical criticism should be applied to Paul's letters is the study by R. D. Anderson.65_{In this study}

Anderson, who studied classics before turning to theology, aptly reveals the weak foundations of many rhetorical analyses of New Testament texts. For example, in his discussion of the available sources for ancient rhetorical theory he points out several important aspects which New Testament scholars do not take into account when applying ancient rhetorical theory to New Testament texts: that no uniform ancient rhetorical system existed; that there was quite a difference between philo-sophic rhetoric (such as that of Aristotle) and the kind of rhetoric practised in rhe-torical schools; that actual rherhe-torical practice was more flexible than suggested by the seemingly endless distinctions and rules formulated in rhetorical school, and that our knowledge of ancient rhetoric is incomplete due to the fact that many of the sources were lost.66 As Anderson's overview of ancient rhetorical theories

59

J. Fairweather, "The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Part 3", TynB 45:2 (1994), pp. 213-243.

60

J. S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (WUNT 149, Tü-bingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002).

61

Ibid., p. 27.

62

Ibid., pp. 87-114. Earlier versions: J. S. Vos, "Die Argumentation des Paulus in Galater 1,1-2,10",

in: J. Lambrecht (ed.), The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1-4:11) (BMSBES 12, Rome: Benedic-tina, 1993), pp. 11-43; and "Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1-2", HThR 87:1 (1994), pp. 1-16.

63

Die Kunst der Argumentation, pp. 115-133. Earlier version: "Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11-12; Römer 10.5-10)", NTS 38:2 (1992), pp. 254-270.

64_{Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation, p. 126, explains the fact that similar strategies are found in}

rab-binical praxis in two ways: 1. The rhetorical theorists described persuasive strategies that were used universally; 2. The procedures in courts of law were copied in other areas of life.

65_{Ancient Rhetorical Theory.} 66_{Ibid., pp. 35-97.}

(24)

progresses, it becomes clear that these points are indeed correct. He points out some of the consequences for the way in which ancient rhetorical theory can be used:

- the fact that there was a difference between philosophical rhetoric and school rhetoric implies that works such as Aristotle's Rhetoric can only be used with reticence;67

- it is pointless to classify a letter as deliberative or epideictic without consid-ering the argumentative techniques in terms of the topoi associated with each genre;68

- since the philosophical tradition of argumentative patterns does not provide information as to how, when or where the topoi were to be used, modern rhe-torical textbooks may even provide a better system for analysing Paul's argu-mentation;69_and

- ancient rhetorical treatises were written to help an orator to prepare speeches, not to analyse speeches: when one of Paul's letters is analysed in terms of a particular rhetorical theory we cannot be certain whether he in fact followed that specific theory and, if so, whether he did so systematically or not. In any case, according to Anderson, ultimately many of the argumentative processes Paul uses could be attributed to common sense.70

This inevitably leads to the question: Can we use ancient rhetorical criticism at all when studying Paul's letters? Anderson's answer is that the only solution to this thorny issue would be to change one's approach. Instead of applying an ancient rhetorical model to one of Paul's letters as if he had known and followed it close-ly, the question should be rephrased as follows: how would this ancient rhetorical theoretician have applied his theory to Paul's letter? Of course, if one follows such an approach, one would learn more of the ancient literary theoretician's views of Paul's literary ability than of Paul's own views in this regard.71

Anderson also provides a critical overview of the way in which New Testa-ment scholars have applied ancient rhetorical theory to Galatians,72 Romans and 1 67 Ibid., pp. 66-67. 68 Ibid., pp. 97-98. 69 Ibid., p. 103. 70 Ibid., p. 90. 71 Ibid., pp. 104-105. 72

It may be useful to cite Anderson's views on some of the studies mentioned to thus far:

- Betz (Galatians) is criticised for his unsuccessful attempt to place Galatians within an "apol-ogetic" letter tradition and the weaknesses in his use of the forensic model;

- Aune's ("Review", pp. 323-325) and Hansen's (Abraham in Galatians, pp. 57-59) attempts to classify Galatians as a mixture of forensic and deliberative genres are not convincing; these attempts should rather be regarded as an indication that the standard rhetorical genres do not fit the letter;

- Kennedy's (New Testament Interpretation, pp. 144-152) and Hall's ("Rhetorical Outline", pp. 277-287) attempts to base their arguments for the deliberative nature of Galatians on the oc-currence of an exhortatio in the letter are refuted by the fact that rhetorical theorists never dis-cussed exhortatio in any of the three genres;

(25)

Corinthians before presenting his own rhetorical analysis of each of these letters. In the case of Galatians he does not attempt to provide a rhetorical outline in terms of any of the three rhetorical genres, since, in his opinion, the letter does not fall within the confines of a specific rhetorical genre. Furthermore, he argues against attempts to divide it into the traditional partes of a speech. Instead, he concentrates on understanding the argumentative flow in the letter, the lack of any rhetorical syllogisms and other ancient forms of argumentation in the letter, as well as certain stylistic issues.73_{He describes his approach as "maximalist, and}

more akin to how Paul's letter may have been interpreted by a contemporary pro-fessor of rhetoric".74

1.3.2 A second alternative to Betz's approach in his commentary on Galatians is to

combine a rhetorical analysis with (an)other approach(es) to Galatians, for example epistolary analysis:75

 A good example of such an approach is R. N. Longenecker.76_{In his commentary}

on Galatians, Longenecker combines an epistolary analysis and a rhetorical analy-sis. In his epistolary analysis, he rejects Betz's statement that the epistolary nature of Galatians is not important for the understanding of the letter, and then proceeds with an epistolary analysis of the letter.77 This is followed by a rhetorical analysis unlike that of Betz. Longenecker rejects the scholastic and rigid way in which Betz applies rhetorical criticism to Galatians. Instead, he opts for what he calls a "synchronic" rhetoric analysis. Such an approach focuses on the composition of the text and not on the genetic relations to other ancient writings (as in Betz's case). He then proceeds to discuss various rhetorical categories employed in an-tiquity (for example, the use of ethos as argument, argument by definition,

- Hester ("Placing the Blame", pp. 281-307) is criticised for not understanding the nature of

stasis theory and overlooking the fact that blaming in epideictic rhetoric was never directed at

the audience.

(See Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, pp. 129-142.)

73

Ibid., pp. 124-125.

74

Ibid., p. 144. Anderson divides the letter into the following four sections: 1:1-10: Epistolary opening and rebuke.

1:11-2:21: Narrative apology: Independence and divine origin of Paul's Gospel.

3:1-4:11: Argument: The nature of the Galatians' initial reception of the Gospel followed by Scripture proof (3:1-14), and a didactic explanation of his position.

4:12-5:12: Emotional appeal.

75

See Hübner, "Verhältnis", pp. 241-250, who emphasises the importance of the fact that Galatians is a letter, too. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, pp. 109-126, discusses the relationship between rhetoric and epistolography in more detail.

76

R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41, Dallas: Word, 1990). The studies of Hansen, Abraham in

Galatians, and Schoon-Janßen, Umstrittene "Apologien" (both discussed in 1.2 above) could also be

classified here. See also L. L. Cranford, "A Rhetorical Reading of Galatians", SWJTh 37:1 (1994), pp. 4-10.

(26)

ment by dissociation of ideas, etc.), and shows how Paul used similar techniques in Galatians.78

 Another scholar who combines a rhetorical analysis and other approaches is V.

Jegher-Bucher.79 Her study begins with an analysis of the Letter to the Galatians

in terms of ancient epistolography, followed by an analysis of the letter from a rhetorical perspective: Galatians must be viewed as an example of deliberative rhetoric although the letter contains some elements of forensic oratory. Lastly, the letter is considered in terms of the issues of style and implied readers.

 D. Kremendahl80_{also combines an epistolographic and rhetorical analysis. He}

ac-cepts Betz's classification of the genre of Galatians as "Verteidigungsbrief", but modifies it in two ways: 1. by restricting it to 1:1-5:6, and 2. by not limiting "apology" to a forensic setting.81 He divides the letter as follows:82

Epistolographic Rhetorical 1:1-5: Prescript 1:6-12: Exordium 1:13-2:21: Narratio 3:1-5:1 Argumentatio 3:1-5: "Exordialer Auftakt" 3:6-14: Refutatio I 3:15-4:7 Refutatio II 4:8-20: Probatio 4:21-5:1: "Perorativer Ausklang" 5:2-6: Subscriptio 5:2-6: Peroratio

5:7ff.: Post scriptum 5:7-12: Second Exordium

5:13-6:10: Paraenesis

6:11-15: Subscriptio 6:11-18: Second Peroratio

1.3.3 A third alternative to Betz's approach is to perform a rhetorical analysis without

using ancient rhetoric at all. A number of scholars follow this alternative:

 P. E. Koptak83_{discusses Galatians 1:13-2:14 in terms of the rhetorical principle of}

identification as formulated by Kenneth Burke. This principle refers to any at-tempt to overcome human division or strife by establishing some common ground. Koptak then shows how Paul seeks to identify with the Galatians in this part of his letter, as well as how he attempts to help them identify with him.

 The study of G. W. Hansen84_{has already been discussed above. As I have pointed}

out, he combines various approaches. One of the approaches he follows, is to

78

Ibid., pp. cxiii-cxix.

79

V. Jegher-Bucher, Der Galaterbrief auf dem Hintergrund antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik. Ein

anderes Paulusbild (AThANT 78, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991).

80_{Die Botschaft der Form. Zum Verständnis von antiker Epistolografie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief}

(NTOA 46, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000).

81

Ibid., pp. 148-149.

82

Ibid., p. 160.

83

P. E. Koptak, "Rhetorical Identification in Paul's Autobiographical Narrative. Galatians 1.13-2.14",

JSNT 40 (1990), pp. 97-113.

(27)

sider Galatians in terms of the rhetorical techniques described by Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca.85 Hansen86 selects fifteen of the rhetorical techniques described in their book and shows how Paul uses them in Galatians. I mention four exam-ples:

- An argument from authority is used when Paul emphasises his authority as an apostle (for example, Galatians 1:1).

- An argument by definition is used when Paul describes "his gospel" in vari-ous ways (Galatians 1:11, 12, 16).

- Arguments based on dissociation of ideas are used frequently in Galatians as Paul regularly uses antithetical pairs, for example curse/blessing, works/faith and flesh/Spirit.

- An argument concerning the difference of degree and order is used when Paul argues for a difference in order between law and promise (Galatians 3:19-4:17) whereas his opponents apparently do not share this view.

 R. Meynet87_{argues against the use of ancient rhetoric in the analysis of Galatians.}

He prefers to interpret the letter by using what he calls "biblical rhetoric". He then discusses three characteristics of Biblical rhetoric, namely that it is concrete rather than abstract; that it tends to be paratactic; and that it is characterised, in particu-lar, by two principal patterns of composition, namely concentric and parallel structures. This approach is then illustrated by a rhetorical analysis of Galatians 4:1-20.

 In his study on argumentation in Galatians 2:15ff., M. Bachmann88_provides

sev-eral grounds for deciding not to follow the approach developed by Betz: it tends to ignore the fact that ancient rhetorical theories were developed for producing new speeches and not for evaluating or analysing existing speeches; if such a system is applied rigorously, it does not take into account the fact that orators were allowed considerable freedom when employing the techniques they were taught; it usually does not take into account that there can be a vast difference between ancient rhe-torical theories on certain aspects, and, in the case of Galatians, it tends to ignore the occurrence of elements typical of popular approaches, such as diatribe style. According to Bachmann, this can be found in Galatians 2:17ff.89 Accordingly, Bachmann opts for a text-centred approach:

Von daher mag es sinnvoll sein, sich der wissenschaftstheoretischen Überzeugung von K. R. Popper anzuschließen, der "die Verschwendung von Zeit und Kraft auf terminologische Vorstudien" beklagt, "die sich oft als nutzlos erweisen, weil sie vom wirklichen Fortschritt der Problemsituation überholt werde", und der deshalb die Maxime vertritt: "Man soll nie versuchen, exakter zu sein, als die Problemsituation

85_{The New Rhetoric.}

86_{Abraham in Galatians, pp. 79-93.}

87_{R. Meynet, "Quelle rhétorique dans l'Épître aux Galates? Le cas de Ga 4,12-20", Rhet 12:4 (1994),}

pp. 427-450.

88

Sünder oder Übertreter. Studien zur Argumentation in Gal 2,15ff. (WUNT 59, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992).

(28)

erfordert." Es wird deshalb hier nicht vorgreifend ein differenzierter Begriffsapparat aufgebaut oder auch nur adaptiert und zitiert, der dann durchgehend zur Anwendung käme. Vielmehr wird im folgenden mit aus der Umgangssprache und dem exege-tischen Betrieb weithin vertrauten Termini gearbeit; nur dort, wo Text(elemente) und wissenschaftliches Gespräch es sinnvoll erscheinen lassen, wird größere Präzision angestrebt.90

In his analysis of Galatians 2:15ff., Bachmann then adheres to this procedure and presents a detailed analysis of it in terms of a text-centred approach. It is only to-wards the end of his work that he returns to the issues usually considered in the more traditional rhetorical approaches to Galatians. For example, he concludes that Galatians is closer to deliberative rhetoric than to forensic rhetoric; he identi-fies Galatians 2:15-21 not as the propositio, but as the first argument ("erster Be-weisgang"), and he presents his own rhetorical structure of Galatians.91

 The study by Kern92_{could also be mentioned here. The primary purpose of his}

study is to challenge the notion that Galatians is either a sample of classical rheto-ric or that it could be interpreted in the light of ancient rhetorheto-rical textbooks. In this he succeeds admirably. Towards the end of the study he also makes some sugges-tions as to how one could analyse Paul's own discourse strategy. These include the following: (1) Consideration of the "common places" that Paul uses; (2) Consider-ation of his methods and motives for using devices such as example, irony, allego-ry, etc.; (3) Consideration of how the shape of the letter carries communicative force. He also adds other options, namely the analysis of the logic of Paul's argu-ments; the analysis of Galatians 1-2 by means of narrative theory; a focus on the way in which rhetoric underwent changes in the hands of Christians; and, lastly, the use of newly developed approaches to rhetoric.93

1.4 Conclusion

From the above overview it is clear that no uniform approach to rhetorical analysis can be discerned in the rhetorical studies discussed. However, broadly speak-ing, one can distinguish several distinctive emphases among scholars who study Gala-tians from a rhetorical perspective:

90_{Ibid., p. 21. Note that Bachmann also remains sceptical of applying modern rhetorical theories (such}

as those of Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca, New Rhetoric) to Galatians.

91

Ibid., p. 158. He proposes the following rhetorical structure: 1:1-5: Prescript.

1:6-10: Prooimion.

1:11-2:14: Narratio (2:14b functions as partitio). 2:15-6:17: Argumentatio.

2:15-21: First argument. 3:1-6:17: Second argument. 6:18: "Eschatokoll".

92

P. H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians. Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistle (SNTS.MS 101, Cam-bridge University Press, 1998).

(29)

 A first type of approach can be typified as a rather rigid application of categories used in ancient rhetorical theory. Scholars following such an approach tend to take distinctions from ancient rhetorical theories and apply them to (some would say: force them upon) Galatians. Accordingly, they spend much time on issues such as the rhetorical genre of Galatians (forensic, deliberative or epideictic), careful delineation of Galatians in terms of the ways in which speeches were di-vided by ancient rhetoricians, and/or a description of Paul's argumentation in terms of ancient rhetorical categories.

 A second type of approach seems to be followed by a group of scholars whose approach overlaps94 the first group in that they also make use of (some of) the dis-tinctions formulated in classical rhetoric. However, the difference lies in the fact that these scholars tend to use the ancient categories in a much less rigid way, since they try to bear in mind that Galatians is a letter and not a speech. This usu-ally leads to a "milder" application of the rhetorical categories. Such a "milder" approach is then often combined with other techniques, for example epistolary analysis.

 A third type of approach – one that is not followed very often! – can be discerned in those cases where scholars make a rhetorical analysis of Galatians, but avoid using ancient rhetorical categories. One of two possibilities is then usually fol-lowed: 1. Modern rhetorical theories are applied to the letter, or 2. Argumentation is analysed strictly in terms of a text-centred approach in which case the letter it-self serves as the starting-point for the analysis instead of applying a rhetorical model to the letter.

=============================================================

Excursus: A brief overview of approaches followed in rhetorical analyses of oth-er Pauline lettoth-ers

It appears that the rhetorical studies of other Pauline letters indicate more or less sim-ilar emphases to those outlined for Galatians. A few examples will suffice.

1. Studies based on a rather rigid application of ancient rhetorical categories.

- R. Jewett95_{presents a rhetorical analysis of the proofs in Romans in order to outline}

its argument. He uses categories from the Rhetorica ad Herennium and Hermogones to describe the argumentation in the letter. He identifies four "proofs" in Romans:

confirmatio (1:18-4:25), exornatio (5:1-8:39), comparatio (9:1-11:30), and exhorta-tio (12:1-15:13).

- In his study of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 H. D. Betz96_{follows a more or less similar}

procedure as in his commentary on Galatians. He delineates 2 Corinthians 8 as

94

Thus, it would also be possible to represent the first two types of approaches in terms of a continu-um of approaches varying from a rather rigid application of ancient rhetorical theory to "milder" appli-cations thereof.

95

"Following the Argument of Romans", in: K. P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1991, Revised and Expanded Version), pp. 265-277.

96

2 Corinthians 8 and 9. A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermene-ia, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

(30)

lows: Exordium (vv. 1-5); narratio (v. 6); propositio (vv. 7-8); probatio (vv. 9-15); commendation of the delegates (vv. 16-22); authorisation of the delegates (v. 23), and peroratio (v. 24). He then classifies this "administrative letter" as consisting of two rhetorical genres, namely vv. 1-15 as being deliberative and vv. 16-23 as being forensic. 2 Corinthians 9 is divided as follows: Exordium (vv. 1-2); narratio (vv. 3-5a); propositio (vv. 5b-c); probatio (vv. 6-14), and peroratio (v. 15). Betz identifies the rhetorical genre of this "letter" as deliberative.

- J. Smit97_{explores the course of argumentation and the genre of 1 Corinthians}

12-14. He uses classical and Hellenistic rhetoric – in particular, Rhetorica ad

Alexan-drum, Cicero's De inventione and De partione oratoria, as well as Rhetorica ad Her-ennium. He begins by examining the framework of these chapters (1 Corinthians

12:1-3 and 14:37-40) in the light of views of the ancient rhetoricians on the exordium and peroratio. This is followed by an analysis of the argumentation in 1 Corinthians 12:4-30 and 14:1-33a in terms of rhetorical concepts such as partitio and

confirma-tio. Then he discusses the rhetorical genre of the three chapters. He concludes that

chapters 12 and 14 should be classified as deliberative and chapter 13 as epideictic. - T. S. Olbricht98_{presents an Aristotelian analysis of 1 Thessalonians. He discusses}

three issues, namely proofs (pivsti"), style (levxi"), and arrangement (tavxi"). With regard to the first aspect, he shows how Paul uses ethos as the ma-jor form of proof in the letter. Paul also uses pathos and logos, but to a lesser extent. With regard to style, he draws attention to the four virtues Aristotle held to be char-acteristic of good style: perspicuity, purity, loftiness and propriety. He notes that 1 Thessalonians seems to conform to these virtues: a proper stylistic balance pervades the letter; it seems to be suitably elevated; its Greek is pure, and it has the clarity and liveliness that Aristotle wanted. With regard to the third aspect, arrangement, Ol-bricht indicates that the Aristotelian divisions are not helpful.

2. Studies based on a "milder" form of ancient rhetorical criticism.

- F. W. Hughes99 discusses the rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians. He describes his ap-proach as taking into account both the "larger river of rhetorical tradition and the smaller streams which interacted with each other within the tradition",100 and specif-ically points out that one should not make rhetorical criticism into a "new kind of form-critical strait-jacket"101 into which letters could be forced. He identifies 1 Thessalonians as an example of epideictic rhetoric, dividing it as follows: Exordium (1:1-10), narratio (2:1-3:10), partitio (3:11-13), probatio (4:1-5:3), peroratio (5:4-11), exhortation (5:12-22), and final prayers and greetings (5:23-28). In his discus-sion he shows how Paul uses many of the strategies used by Greek and Roman ora-tors.

97

"Argument and genre of 1 Corinthians 12-14", in: S. E. Porter & T. H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and

the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNT.S 90, Sheffield: JSOT Press,

1993), pp. 211-243.

98

"An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians", in: D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson & W. A. Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans and Christians. Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneap-olis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 216-230.

99

"The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians", in: R. F. Collins (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence (BEThL 87, Leuven: University Press, 1990), pp. 94-116.

100_{Ibid., p. 108.} 101_Ibid.